The Economic Benefits of Wetland Retention and Restoration in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the willingness to pay of Manitobans for wetland retention and restoration using stated preference methods applied to a sample of 1,980 respondents from the provincial population. The approach employed an iterated series of binary choice scenarios framed as referenda and utilized both cheap talk and certainty approaches in the design as well as tests of sensitivity to scope of the environmental improvement. The results suggest that over a five‐year period Manitobans would be willing to pay $296–$326/household/year depending on the level of the wetland program improvement. Using 5% (10%) discount rates these estimates result in present value aggregate payments of $504 ($550) million for retaining wetlands at current levels and about a further $106($110) million (for a total of $611 [$666] million) for restoring wetlands to estimated 1968 levels. Comparison of these benefits with current land values and restoration costs suggests that full restoration may not be economically efficient, but that retention in concert with some restoration may be. La présente étude, fondée sur la méthode des préférences déclarées d'un échantillon de 1 980 répondants du Manitoba, a examiné le consentement à payer des Manitobains pour conserver et pour restaurer les milieux humides. La méthode comprenait une série itérée de scénarios à choix binaires intégrés dans des enquêtes, des propos gratuits (cheap talk), des estimateurs d'équivalent‐certains et des tests de sensitivité pour évaluer l'étendue de l'amélioration de l'environnement. Nos résultats permettent de croire que, au cours d'une période de cinq ans, les Manitobains consentiraient à payer de 296 à 326$/par ménage/par année selon le niveau d'amélioration des milieux humides prévu dans le programme. À des taux d'actualisation de 5% (10%), ces estimations engendrent des paiements agrégés dont la valeur actualisée s'élève à 504 (550) millions de dollars pour conserver les milieux humides aux niveaux actuels et à 106 (110) millions de dollars supplémentaires pour restaurer les milieux humides aux niveaux de 1968. Une comparaison de ces avantages avec la valeur actuelle des terres et les coûts de restauration autorise à penser que la restauration complète pourrait ne pas être économiquement efficace et que la conservation combinée à un certain degré de restauration pourrait l'être.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".